Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-multi6-multihoming-requirements-04.txt

[Sean Doran <smd@ab.use.net>]

On Wednesday, Apr 16, 2003, at 08:48 Europe/London, Brian E Carpenter 
wrote:

> > 4. Security Considerations
> >
> >    A multihomed site should not be more vulnerable to security 
> > breaches
> >    than a traditionally IPv4-multihomed site.
> Should we add "or a single-homed IPv6 site"?
Site multihoming has costs.  One of the obvious possible side-effects
of being multihomed is an increase in potential vulnerabilities.  I 
would prefer
to see them documented than precluded (the known space in which a 
solution
may be found is already too small) or denied.

I think the goal of being no worse for a site than multihoming using 
IPv4
is admirable and at least mostly tractable.

	Sean.